Holmes Wilson, Campaigns Manager for the FSF, expounded on the chilling effect of proprietary software on education. “The fundamental role of schools is to encourage a level of curiosity and inquisitiveness and exploration in students that cultivates an engagement with the world, and with ideas. When you’re using computers in the classroom that are running proprietary software, there’s this barrier there that prevents students from understanding the machine they’re using. It is a real, in some ways, an affront, to the natural inquisitiveness of any student. If somebody gets into computers, but then they can’t dig into the computer that they’re actually using there in the classroom, that’s stifling a level of… That’s stifling a desire to learn, that really, schools should be encouraging.”

The Free Software Foundation has described the One Laptop per Child Project as one that will only help to “turn millions of children into Microsoft dependents.”

[...]

It said, due to this dramatic change of policy, many FOSS volunteers quit in disgust.

“But Negroponte, desiring the financial support of Bill Gates and Microsoft, ignored them and proceeded with his decision. As a result, it is expected that the main effect of the OLPC project – if it succeeds – will be to turn millions of children into Microsoft dependents.

“That is a negative effect, to the point where the world would be better off if the OLPC project had never existed. The project tragically became yet another example of Microsoft exerting its control to ends harmful to society’s freedom,” the FSF said.

With phrases like “Nutty”, or “doesn’t have much chance of succeeding”, even calling them extortionists, it’s clear why you wrote this and to which audience. But since this was written in a gently concealed adversarial fashion, I allow my reply to be much the same. Your blog entry is not about the activities of the FSF in Boston, but really is about your shallow opinions, spin, and little else.

We previously explained how those who had been attacking the FSF were all the usual suspects who have always bashed the FSF and/or its cause anyway. In other words, they are dyed-in-the-wool characters who were unlikely to be persuaded by any such campaign and were therefore not the target audience in the first place. Money-driven publications tend to be hostile towards ethics and correction of unethical things; it is seen as adversarial. Many people fell into the trap set up by pro-Microsoft folks (Preston Gralla for example) who tried to use Apple as a weapon against the FSF’s argument. This issue has already been addressed and Bradley Kuhn from the SFLC writes: “FSF did some anti-Apple campaigns too. Personally I worry more about Apple because they have user loyalty; Microsoft doesn’t”

People who say that the FSF only targets Microsoft are simply not paying any attention. The FSF is focused on behaviour, not on companies.

Now the neowin news site does seem to be a bubble of Microsoft lovers. fanatics that seem to put all rational discourse to one side while they savage the “opponent”. Their main argument seems to be “Well if you can serve me with the exact this I want, then I’ll be your friend”

In conclusion, it is immensely important to know the messengers (their historical record) when assessing feedback to the FSF’s campaign. The Microsoft ecosystem most certainty was not the target audience of the FSF. █

“Today many people are switching to free software for purely practical reasons. That is good, as far as it goes, but that isn’t all we need to do! Attracting users to free software is not the whole job, just the first step.”

–Richard Stallman

Share this post:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

A Single Comment

Neowin, true to its MS orientation, is one of the least tolerant tech websites. They threatened to ban me over one post, after I had done about three posts, because I dared to disagree with their precious values. I stopped reading.

Staff of the EPO is given yet more reasons to protest tomorrow at the British Consulate, for the so-called 'President' of the EPO reminds everyone of the very raison d'être for the protest -- a vain disregard for the rule of law

The European Patent Office (EPO) President, Benoît Battistelli, reportedly started threatening -- as before -- staff that decides to exercise the right to assemble and protest against abuses, including the abuses of President Battistelli himself

A protest in Munich in less than 6 days will target Mr. Sean Dennehey, who has helped Battistelli cover up his abuses and crush legitimate critics, whom he deemed illegal opposition as if the EPO is an authoritarian regime as opposed to a public service which taxpayers are reluctantly (but forcibly) funding